In your line of work, whats more important physical evidence vs. witness statement? I think the physical evidence. Lets be honest, that video evidence directly after the fight shows no signs of a fight. No bruising or blood to the face, back of the head, no ripped clothing, doesnt look physically exhasted, etc. A broken nose or gash to the back of the head should be noticable.

Im calling bullsh*t on Zimmy. Going to ground and rolling around is alot different from some a child on top of a grown medium to large man physically beating him. Alot different.

Depends on a lot of factors. How reliable is the physical evidence, how reliable is the witness statement. I have more than once seen juries side with the eyewitness account of something rather than video evidence.

It's clear you have made up your mind in this matter and, barring incontrovertable evidence that Martin was laying in wait and attacking Zimmerman from behind, you won't even consider the possibility that Martin may have been the aggressor or the person who escalated the confrontation into a physical altercation. I get it - Martin is a "child", Zimmerman is a coward with a gun so he MUST be guilty of murder. Couldn't happen any other way.

Yeah I agree. I was against Zimmerman at first, then I thought Zimmerman had a good case, and now there's video that could possibly prove Zimmerman was lying. I haven't seen the video but if it's true and he didn't suffer any injuries than I don't know what to believe. I'm just going to wait until all the facts come out.

I looked at the video and you have a pretty good shot of his head with short, short crew cut (really like a 5:00 shadow on his head) and I couldn't see any lacerations or bandages. Zimmerman's lawyer says there was a broken nose. If so, let's some hospital records, same for the lacerations. I think he was admitted to the hospital at some point (I don't remember). If so, their records would reflect any treatment.

The more I think about it, the less I like the Florida law. We can sit here and parse the evidence and second guess it's meaning & weight. Many, like Chico, will reach conclusions as to guilt or innocence based on conjecture and/or speculation. Under the Florida law, however, it is likely that no jury will ever have all the evidence laid before them, see the various doucments, hear the recordings, see videos, and hear the various witnesses testify under oath subject to cross-examination so that they can weigh the credibility of them.

A person was killed and the law is not holding anyone - not the Zimmerman or Martin - accountable for the events of that evening. To me, just as is Martin's death, that's a real tragedy.

Depends on a lot of factors. How reliable is the physical evidence, how reliable is the witness statement. I have more than once seen juries side with the eyewitness account of something rather than video evidence.

It's clear you have made up your mind in this matter and, barring incontrovertable evidence that Martin was laying in wait and attacking Zimmerman from behind, you won't even consider the possibility that Martin may have been the aggressor or the person who escalated the confrontation into a physical altercation. I get it - Martin is a "child", Zimmerman is a coward with a gun so he MUST be guilty of murder. Couldn't happen any other way.

Joe, Im just forming my opinion like everyone else. I think Zimmerman could have easily avoided killing Martin, I think he had several opportunities to do so. Im not buying his life was in danger.

Clearly if Zimmerman displayed physical injuries of being beat, I would be less inclined to say he was lying. Im keeping an open mind and appreciate your perspective.

I worked in a Court Service Unit, mom works directly for a CA and have a good friend who is a prosecutor up in Fairfax Va so always been interest in crime. Plus ive had some run ins when i was younger

Joe, Im just forming my opinion like everyone else. I think Zimmerman could have easily avoided killing Martin, I think he had several opportunities to do so. Im not buying his life was in danger.
Clearly if Zimmerman displayed physical injuries of being beat, I would be less inclined to say he was lying. Im keeping an open mind and appreciate your perspective.

I worked in a Court Service Unit, mom works directly for a CA and have a good friend who is a prosecutor up in Fairfax Va so always been interest in crime. Plus ive had some run ins when i was younger

Fair enough. Under the law in Florida, however, "not buying it" is not enough to convict him of anything. The evidence has to prove he is lying about self-defense.

To me, right now, it's still could be either way. Having been a young, male teenager myself and having some run-ins with them in my neighborhood, I have no doubt that what Zimmerman says happened could have, in fact, happened. The operative word being "could". [EDIT: By saying this, I am in no way trying to imply Martin was a gang-banger thug. He have been a good kid in bad mood, a little hot-tempered that day, w/e, and just got rubbed the wrong way. There was a time in my youth when a cross look got a challenge from me and I was always ready to throw down - and did more than once].

To be clear, I think Zimmerman exercised bad judgment in a lot of ways that night and, with better judgment, could have avoided the whole situation. I don't think, however, bad judgment necessarily makes you a bad person - which, to me, it seems you have concluded about Zimmerman. Further, one person's bad judgment doesn't excuse the bad judgment of others which, if he attacked first, Martin may have exercised.

I looked at the video and you have a pretty good shot of his head with short, short crew cut (really like a 5:00 shadow on his head) and I couldn't see any lacerations or bandages. Zimmerman's lawyer says there was a broken nose. If so, let's some hospital records, same for the lacerations. I think he was admitted to the hospital at some point (I don't remember). If so, their records would reflect any treatment.

The more I think about it, the less I like the Florida law. We can sit here and parse the evidence and second guess it's meaning & weight. Many, like Chico, will reach conclusions as to guilt or innocence based on conjecture and/or speculation. Under the Florida law, however, it is likely that no jury will ever have all the evidence laid before them, see the various doucments, hear the recordings, see videos, and hear the various witnesses testify under oath subject to cross-examination so that they can weigh the credibility of them.

A person was killed and the law is not holding anyone - not the Zimmerman or Martin - accountable for the events of that evening. To me, just as is Martin's death, that's a real tragedy.

In my opinion the only positive that can come from this tragedy would be severe modifications to the stand your ground law. As I have said before my opinion based on a confrontation between a unarmed teen and an armed adult resulting in the unarmed teen dying should be murder. And when I say that, that is coming from someone with a lot of training with firearms and a respect for the lethal potential of a loaded gun. But based on the "facts" so far it seems like Zimmerman broke no law in the state of Florida. Hopefully that law will change, and I wish the media would focus on that rather than sensationalizing each of the persons involved. Right now it seems like everyone would rather quiver over who is right or wrong in this case rather than trying to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

Just out of curiosity what kind of law do you practice?

__________________ "I don't think anybody should have regrets, especially me, ... You don't regret what you do in your life. If you do it, you do it for a reason."

In my opinion the only positive that can come from this tragedy would be severe modifications to the stand your ground law. As I have said before my opinion based on a confrontation between a unarmed teen and an armed adult resulting in the unarmed teen dying should be murder. And when I say that, that is coming from someone with a lot of training with firearms and a respect for the lethal potential of a loaded gun. But based on the "facts" so far it seems like Zimmerman broke no law in the state of Florida. Hopefully that law will change, and I wish the media would focus on that rather than sensationalizing each of the persons involved. Right now it seems like everyone would rather quiver over who is right or wrong in this case rather than trying to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

I am fine with the law as it is in every other state (unless, they have a law like Florida's). If you are in reasonable fear of your life (or the life of wife/child, etc.), and can prove that your fear was reasonable, it doesn't matter who the attacker was - you have the right to defend with whatever force is necessary including deadly force. You just damn well better be able to prove that a real life threatening situation existed.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

I'd be very surprised if the CC & R's of the Homeowners association don't already state something like that but the FL law contradicts it.

I'd love to be on the jury for this case as long as Chico and Saden1 are out at voir dire.

I'd be very surprised if the CC & R's of the Homeowners association don't already state something like that but the FL law contradicts it.

I'd love to be on the jury for this case as long as Chico and Saden1 are out at voir dire.

Its jaw dropping how irresponsible it is to be roaming a neighborhood with a gun question people. Thats why it seems to me this type of person is looking for trouble or if he generally afraid of his neighborhood he has to carry a gun he needs to stay on the sideline. I wonder did his neighbors knew he was carrying a side arm?

I am fine with the law as it is in every other state (unless, they have a law like Florida's). If you are in reasonable fear of your life (or the life of wife/child, etc.), and can prove that your fear was reasonable, it doesn't matter who the attacker was - you have the right to defend with whatever force is necessary including deadly force. You just damn well better be able to prove that a real life threatening situation existed.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

I'm pretty sure that I heard there are handful of states that have a law similar to Florida's.

I am fine with the law as it is in every other state (unless, they have a law like Florida's). If you are in reasonable fear of your life (or the life of wife/child, etc.), and can prove that your fear was reasonable, it doesn't matter who the attacker was - you have the right to defend with whatever force is necessary including deadly force. You just damn well better be able to prove that a real life threatening situation existed.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

I have a really really hard time justifying self-defense on the part of Zimmerman when he trailed him despite being told to stop following him. I have a hard time believing there exists a neighborhood watchman that doesn't know the streets in his own neighborhood. I have an even harder time believing getting out of your car to look at a street sign. Most of all I have a really hard time believing the down right disregard for what self-defense means in this country by so many.

It is irrelevant whether Trayvon was on top beating him or below getting beat up, or who was screaming for help. What is truly relevant is that you can apparently follow someone and shoot them and then claim self-defense.

It's very difficult to not wish you all or your children to suffer the same fate as Trayvon and experience Zimmermanian self-defense first hand.